Background
After water and sewage backed up through several fixtures in Pamela and Armah Karmo’s home, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company paid slightly more than $7,000 in actual cash value for resulting water damage. The Karmos sought additional benefits, asserting that deteriorated cast-iron drainpipes beneath the slab needed replacement. Although the policy did not cover repairing or replacing the pipes themselves, it covered the cost of tearing out and restoring parts of the home necessary to access plumbing requiring repair or replacement. Armah Karmo died before trial, and Pamela Karmo proceeded with the case.
At trial, Pamela Karmo presented plumbing testimony that the drainage system needed replacement and two Triad Restoration Services estimates valuing the claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value. A separate plumbing contract was admitted with its prices and estimate narrative redacted. The jury found for Karmo but awarded $335,000 in replacement cost value or $305,000 in actual cash value. The circuit court denied Universal’s motions for remittitur and a new trial, and Universal appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First District held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying post-trial relief as to damages. Economic damages must rest on evidence providing a reasonable basis for determining a definite amount, and the Triad estimates were the only admitted valuation evidence. Nothing in the record reasonably supported an award of $335,000 in replacement cost value or $305,000 in actual cash value.
Evidence concerning inflation, sewage-contaminated backfill, the slab, and a later inspection could support the seriousness of the loss or the need for additional covered work, but no testimony or exhibit quantified those matters. The court concluded that the verdict, which was several times greater than the only valuation evidence, could not be logically derived from the record. It reversed the orders denying remittitur and a new trial as to damages and remanded for the circuit court to determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the proper policy measure and to order a remittitur consistent with that determination and the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- A jury’s economic-damages award cannot rest on speculation; the record must provide a reasonable factual basis for calculating a definite amount.
- Evidence that property damage was serious or required additional work does not establish the cost of that work without supporting valuation evidence.
- On remand, the trial court must select the proper policy measure—replacement cost value or actual cash value—and order a remittitur supported by the evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Florida courts must meaningfully scrutinize challenged damages awards under the statutory remittitur criteria, even while respecting the jury’s factfinding role. A verdict exceeding the admitted valuation evidence by several multiples cannot stand when the additional amount has no logical evidentiary foundation.
For property-insurance litigants, the opinion underscores the importance of presenting quantified evidence for every claimed category of covered work and for asserted price increases. Testimony establishing the necessity or severity of repairs, without evidence of their cost, will not support a substantially enlarged economic-damages award.